tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post6438558332808054520..comments2023-06-24T05:37:14.954-04:00Comments on Dichotomous Purity: Pride and fallJackwraithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15707467706526226719noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post-47706368474211056342012-04-26T11:19:33.371-04:002012-04-26T11:19:33.371-04:00Random relevant research: http://www.theatlantic.c...Random relevant research: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/study-of-the-day-the-kind-of-pride-that-leads-to-prejudice/256389/Margothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02419854139343357332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post-2377091909832565022012-04-24T19:43:38.647-04:002012-04-24T19:43:38.647-04:00I'm not trying to trivialize it or make specio...I'm not trying to trivialize it or make specious arguments, I honestly just don't get how trying to do something valuable is a form of "pride." It seems awfully self-defeating to avoid doing things you think are valuable, particularly whatever you might think is "most valuable" whether or not anyone else agrees, because it might therefore make you feel valuable.Margothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02419854139343357332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post-8140979676271896192012-04-24T17:19:43.695-04:002012-04-24T17:19:43.695-04:00No. Don't trivialize what I'm saying. Cont...No. Don't trivialize what I'm saying. Context is a necessary thing and Meditations never suggests that there is a "most valuable" profession or endeavor. The ideal is that people would act in ways that benefit those around them. If that benefit comes in the form of food, medical assistance, or entertainment then, they you go. While he may have had a personal opinion on what is more important (as we all do, in one context or another), the basic principle was to not let one's life be determined by selfish motives that are often displayed in the accumulation of wealth for its own sake and other such things.<br /><br />Now, some people would say that the insane accumulation of wealth by hedge fund managers benefits more than just themselves, but I'm not trying to entertain every specious argument about the modern world. What I was trying to say is that, from my perspective, there are ways to live and reasons to live that make said life worthwhile (or flourish, as it were.) Some people base it on career, some base it on family, some base it on entertaining themselves as much as possible. I don't currently have any of those things (or find them relevant) and that's what I was tossing around last night. In other words, there's no story that would make what I'm doing right now either interesting or worthwhile or, at the very least, not one that I'd accept as credible.Jackwraithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15707467706526226719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post-24418472935340237732012-04-24T14:33:31.979-04:002012-04-24T14:33:31.979-04:00But when you say this: "Most people don't...But when you say this: "Most people don't do the things that are "most valuable". That's an aspect of our world that Marcus would have found most discouraging"... I just think: really? Did he honestly think there was a "most valuable" pursuit or even objectively more/less valuable pursuits? Did he have a ranking in mind? Where did chemical engineering fit? Or is it all relative: everyone should pursue what they think is the most valuable pursuit, and whatever they think is right for them?<br /><br />I suspect most people are pretty highly motivated to see things they happen to be good at or just happen into as more valuable, e.g. people who inherit the family farm thinking that growing food is the "most valuable" pursuit, teachers thinking that teaching is the "most valuable" pursuit, people who excel at politics thinking that's the "most valuable pursuit, etc. Would Marcus say one of them is right and the rest are wrong or is everyone right, and the only problem is when you can't construct the thing you happen to or have to do as "most valuable." <br /><br />Stocking goods at Walmart and waiting tables at Applebee's lend themselves less readily to grand narratives about higher purpose, although if we're going to have stores & restaurants, we do need people do to those things too. And it's not like the professions that can easily be constructed as "valuable" like teaching and medicine actually involve higher-purspose-driven work all the time--how many doctors spend most of their time prescribing unnecessary drugs and doing insurance-mandated paperwork and how many teachers spend most of their time drilling kids on testable material? Not because they're bad people, of course. But maybe the Walmart stockers actually do less harm. <br /><br />Nothing is inherently valuable. It all depends on the stories we tell ourselves. You're only wasting your life if you don't have a good enough story to tell yourself about the value of whatever you're doing, whether it's writing about films or leading a revolution.Margothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02419854139343357332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post-31020608823650241242012-04-24T14:06:35.807-04:002012-04-24T14:06:35.807-04:00Yeah, I was presenting that as kind of a speciousl...Yeah, I was presenting that as kind of a speciously rhetorical question and didn't properly follow up on it (one of the downsides to just clattering these things out in less than an hour.) I don't think that organizing is inherently more worthwhile than art and that's part of what I was trying to allude to with "in true, Stoic fashion." It's one of the things I've struggled with over the years in attempting to reconcile what I like with the philosophy; in the same way that pride tends to compel me to do self-directed things as opposed to the presumably virtuous things.<br /><br />And, you're right. Most people don't do the things that are "most valuable". That's an aspect of our world that Marcus would have found most discouraging, not least because those powerful (economic and social) constraints are systematic and thus prevent people from making it a more virtuous society even if they all wanted to. It was the same in his era and that's part of why he wrote what he did and undertook many of the reforms that he did.<br /><br />In some ways, I was writing this to confront some of the questions that I'm dealing with (aka "what the hell am I doing with my life, other than wasting it?") and kind of publicly reason out what seems most worthy to me at this point. That may, in fact, be writing about films as opposed to trying to lead the revolution (something I haven't been doing a good job of in the past 7 years, anyway.) I guess we'll see.Jackwraithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15707467706526226719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1423976345116829176.post-31378580290337889102012-04-24T13:40:53.373-04:002012-04-24T13:40:53.373-04:00"If one is interested in the more virtuous of..."If one is interested in the more virtuous of ideals in one's society, is that not a form of pride? Those things are worth more, therefore said person is worth more."<br /><br />I don't know about this. For one, I'm not sure there's any agreement (or needs to be) about what kinds of interests/pursuits are "worth more" or "more virtuous." You seem to be saying that political organizing is an inherently worthier interest than entertainment, and thus people who do politics are worth more. So pursuing politics is a form of pride, because it's an attempt to be "worth more." <br /><br />But do you really think art is a less virtuous interest than politics? Or is this an issue of "entertainment" being lowlier than "art"? I think that distinction is probably more about the class of people who enjoy it than any real difference in its social function or value. A great story--whether it's pulp or part of the canon--probably brings more joy and richness to more peoples' lives than most kinds of political organizing. <br /><br />In any case, even if there WERE some objective hierarchy of worthiness of pursuits, we wouldn't want everyone to pursue the "most valuable" thing. Healing people is valuable, but even if we decided that was the most valuable thing, we wouldn't want everyone to do it. Especially because the vast majority would probably be shitty healers. <br /><br />All of which is to say, I don't think most people pursue the thing they think is the "most valuable" in order to increase their own personal worth or value. I think people try to do things they don't suck at, powerfully constrained by the necessities of survival. If they're lucky, maybe the thing they do to survive will seem valuable to them, and/or they'll have free time in which to pursue something else that they think is valuable on the side.Margothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02419854139343357332noreply@blogger.com